PCD Journal Vol. VII No. 1, 2019 27 Democracy, Islam and Party System in Indonesia: Towards a Consensus-Oriented Model? Pál Gyene1 Received: 19 December 2018 | Accepted: 2 May 2019 | Published: 13 May 2019 Abstract This paper argues that the impact of “Islam” on the Indonesian political system is worth studying on three different levels: 1. society’s political divisions; 2. the party system 3. parliamentary politics. I contend that there is a specifically Indonesian “consensus- oriented” democracy model involved in the process—which is not, however, without Western predecessors—wherein political Islam and Islamist parties act not as destabilising factors but rather as “Muslim democratic” forces that strengthen democratic consensus in a manner similar to some “Western” Christian democratic parties. This research is based partly on a historical and, implicitly, comparative approach. It builds strongly on the theoretical framework and methodology of Sartori’s classic party system typology, Lijphardt’s “majoritarian” and “consensus-based” democracy model, and the so-called neo-institutionalist debate on the possible advantages and disadvantages of parliamentary and presidential governments. Keywords: Indonesia, democratisation, party system, political Islam, consensual democracy LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS: Gerindra – Gerakan Indonesia Raya (Great Indonesia Movement Party) GOLKAR – Golongan Karya (Functional Groups) Hanura – Partai Hati Nurani Rakyat (People’s Conscience Party) Masyumi – Sujra Muslimin Indonesia (Indonesian Muslim Liberation Council) NasDem – Partai Nasional Demokrat (National Democratic Party) NU – Nahdlatul Ulama (Revival of the Ulema) Parmusi – Partai Muslimin Indonesia (Indonesian Muslim Party) PAN – Partai Amanat Nasional (National Mandate Party) PD – Partai Demokrat (Democratic Party) PDI – Partai Demokrasi Indonesia (Indonesian Democratic Party) PDI-P – Partai Demokrasi Indonesia - Perjuangan (Indonesian Democratic Party – Struggle) PKB – Partai Kebangkitan Bangsa (National Awakening Party) PKI – Partai Komunis Indonesia (Communist Party of Indonesia) PKS – Partai Keadilan Sejahtera (Prosperous Justice Party) PNI – Partai Nasional Indonesia (Indonesian National Party) PPP – Partai Persatuan dan Pembangunan (Unity and Progress Party) 1 Assistant-professor at Budapest Business School, Faculty of International Management and Business. 28 Democracy, Islam and Party System in Indonesia: Towards a Consensus-Oriented Model? Introduction When Huntington’s clash of civilisations paradigm became one of the most frequently cited topics of international relations literature in the early 1990s, the issue of democracy and its cultural-civilisational embeddedness also became popular topics of research and debate. In Huntington’s paradigm, it is assumed that the relationship between Islamic civilisational background and political democracy is problematic, which is likely due to the fact that, for a long time, research into the links between democracy and Islam concentrated on the Middle East. However, this perspective is strongly biased. Undoubtedly, apart from Tunisia and post- Saddam Iraq (with its rather limited sovereignty up to 2011), there are practically no functioning political democracies in the Middle East, the cradle of Islam. This can be explained by the difficulty of adapting the Western nation state model to the Middle East rather than a general incompatibility between “Islam” and democracy. Today, the demographic—and increasingly economic—hub of the Islamic world has shifted from the Middle East to Southeast Asia. The world’s largest Muslim (or Muslim-majority) country today is Indonesia. With a population of 260 million, it is the world’s third largest political democracy after India and the United States (Mietzner & Aspinall, 2010, p. 3). It should be added that, at the time the Suharto regime fell in 1998, the potential for democratisation in Indonesia did not look promising. The regime change process was associated with ethnic and religious clashes. The potential threat of increasingly radical political Islam, as well as the continued political influence of the army and its instigation of ethnic and religious tensions, similarly caused grave concerns. The hard-to-break deadlocks between legislature and the president, as a representative of the executive branch, were encoded in the constitutional system. Establishing a majority government became a major challenge for all presidents, given the weak institutionalisation of political parties, their often- PCD Journal Vol. VII No. 1, 2019 29 confusing ideological profiles, and the election system’s proportional representation. However, belying all previous concerns and sceptical expectations, since the fall of Suharto and “regime change” in 1998, Indonesia has seen four parliamentary and three direct presidential elections,2 which both international observers and organisers have qualified as free and fair (Ufen, 2018, p.307; Fionna & Tomsa, 2017, p.5). Although some authors remain highly critical of Indonesian democracy, qualifying it as “stagnant” or “low quality” (Mietzner, 2012) or explicitly “oligarchic” (Robison & Hadiz, 2004; Fukuoka, 2013), I would argue that despite all of its weaknesses and dysfunctions the present Indonesian political system meets the minimalist procedural criteria of democracy.3 It is not too much to say that Indonesian democracy has passed the phase of democratic transition, and as such since the mid-2000s (at the very least, since the 2004 elections) the country can be regarded as having a consolidated democracy (Barton, 2010, p.476.). Main Features of the Research The present study analyses the interrelations of democracy and Islam in the Indonesian context. More specifically, it argues that the effect of “Islam” on the Indonesian political system is worth studying at three different levels: 1. society’s political divisions: the relationship between Islam and the state’s secular nature still seems to be the most fundamental political cleavage in Indonesian society; 2. the party system: investigating the position and role of parties 2 In Indonesia, the institution of direct presidential election was introduced through constitutional amendments in 2002. As such, the country is fully presidential in its government. The first direct presidential elections were held in 2004, in parallel with parliamentary elections (Ufen, 2018). 3 In the procedural definition of democracy, the criteria of Robert A. Dahl’s classic polyarchy model are borne in mind, encompassing free and multi-party elections, institutional division of power, media pluralism, etc. (Dahl, 1971). Following Samuel P. Huntington, it may be added that we speak of successful democratic consolidation when there is a smooth change of power in two consecutive free and multi-party elections. This is what happened after the 2004 elections in Indonesia (Huntington, 1991.). 30 Democracy, Islam and Party System in Indonesia: Towards a Consensus-Oriented Model? with political Islamic platforms; 3. parliamentary politics, raising the question of the extent to which secular and Islamic parties are influential actors in the legislative and executive branches. The research is essentially a qualitative, descriptive case study, though it does not fail to look at history and thus, implicitly, to use a comparative approach. Primarily it builds on the concepts and methodology of political science and transitology, the research into democratic transition processes. In its analysis of the post- Suharto era, it strongly builds on the theoretical framework and methodology of Sartori’s classic party system typology4 (Sartori, 1976), Lijphardt’s “majoritarian” and “consensus-based” democracy model5 (Lijphardt, 1984), and on certain findings of the so-called neo-institutionalist debate on the possible advantages and disadvantages of parliamentary and presidential governments (Linz, 1990; Horowitz, 1990; Mainwaring & Shugart, 1993). In the first section, I provide a short summary of the historical and socio-cultural context of Indonesian Islam. In the 4 Sartori basically distinguishes between three types of party systems: in the predominant party system, aside from a dominant governing party we can find asymmetrically weak and fragmented opposition parties. This may superficially resemble the hegemonic party systems of certain authoritarian dictatorships, but in predominant systems the dominant position of the governing party emerges as a result of free and fair competitive elections and not any administrative restrictions on party competition. In two-party systems, the “political arena” is dominated by two equally strong parties which usually form single party governments. Meanwhile, in multi-party systems, the party structure is more fragmented, and multi-party based coalition governments are formed. Among multi-party systems, Sartori further distinguishes between “moderate” and “polarised” multi-party systems according to the degree of ideological polarisation (Sartori, 1976). 5 Lijphardt, in his ground-breaking theoretical work, elaborated on two ideal types of Western democracies. The “majoritarian” (or Westminster) model, based on the characteristics of the British political system, can be characterised by a relatively homogeneous society (beside social class-based political divisions, there are no ethnic or religion-based cleavages in politics); two-party system; single member constituency-based voting system; parliamentary form of government (with strong parliamentary supremacy and relatively